A lot of people have been talking about this as a failure, but I'm not so sure it's either a straight failure or success. The Times lost a lot of traction, but

A lot of people have been talking about this as a failure, but I'm not so sure it's either a straight failure or success. The Times lost a lot of traction, but in doing so gained a lot of revenue both direct and indirect. Add to that the reduction in potential overhead (server 100,000 users instead of millions) and the ability to add content from the main newspaper without fear of it being 'stolen' (compared to if it was open - yes I know it'll be shared in some form anyway, it's news after all, but that's not necessarily how the powers that be may perceive it, and they may feel it's better to push content from the dead tree version out. I don't know, I don't subscribe to either) and you have something that is significantly more profitable than before. If that's the goal, then they win. If bums on seats is the goal, then they lose.